Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11[edit]

Category:Priests by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Priests and the appropriate Category:Clergy by century. Kbdank71 15:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Priests by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Basically a duplicate of the clergy categories where all of the few here are listed. Clergy is basically priests. If the intent of this category is solely to group clergy called priests I'll ask, do we need it? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a container category - does the nom intend to do anything with Category:18th-century priests etc? Deleting a container category is not a good idea IMO. There are categories for RC priests from 11th century to 21st and Anglican ones from 17th to 21st so the tree is not complete (perhaps EstherLois was blocked in mid-flow, or was distracted by causes of priestly demise). Occuli (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think; only contains Anglican & RC priest subcats, in an unecessarily complicated tree. But I don't agree about Category:18th-century Roman Catholic priests - by nationality & by century are the main way of sorting these, & there are impressively few in the main cat, which one might expect to be swamped. I might even be pursuaded into changing to keep here. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, upmerge. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with that, especially as this tree is unfinished. The problem is that any glance into almost any religious category exposes interlocking cans of worms and produces an inclination to retreat quickly. Occuli (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones I've looked at are all creations of EstherLois, aka PastorWayne, and I would happily upmerge the lot of them. Occuli (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At his worst the Revd. Wayne used to create forests of categories with only a handful of articles between them; these seem more useful than that. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, my view is that all categories should be considered on their merits, regardless of who created them. As I like to say when the occasion arises, "Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice every day!" :) Cgingold (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:HC Vitkovice players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: convert to redirect (nominated category was empty at closing). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:HC Vitkovice players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Badly spelled category - correction to Category:HC Vítkovice playersVoletyvole (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Golden Globe Award winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. improve grammar and syntax. --emerson7 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- These are all award categories. The usual solution to these is to listify and delete. A list is more satsfacotry than a category, because the winners are listed in date order, rather than alphabetic order, which is essentially random as to date. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. The normal naming convention for these is (specific award)(general award)(winners), so I'm not sure these justify changing as is. However, I could see moving the (film) and (television) to the end, either as "Best Drama Actress Golden Globe winners (film)" or "Best Drama Actress Golden Globe winners for film". I definitely do not support listifying and deleting, as these are major (if fairly inane) awards.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. convention? there is no convention....someone just created them this way, and as far as i can tell, without much thought given to syntax. inasmuch as each of the categories already has a corresponding list, i'm inclined towards peterkingiron's point of view, and revert back to just having one or so main categories for all winners. --emerson7 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Chicago musicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chicago musicians to Category:Musicians from Chicago, Illinois
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per recent discussions which established a consensus for a "(fooers) from (state)" convention for occupations in the United States. Neier (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Miami rappers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Miami rappers to Category:Rappers from Miami, Florida
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per recent discussions which established a consensus for a "(fooers) from (state)" convention for occupations in the United States. Neier (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Houston, Texas musicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Houston, Texas musicians to Category:Musicians from Houston, Texas
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per recent discussions which established a consensus for a "(fooers) from (state)" convention for occupations in the United States. Neier (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Environmental video[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environmental video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - With only 2 sub-cats and 1 article, which are already well-categorized (so no merging is necessary), this category merely impedes navigation. As such, it is superfluous and serves no real purpose. As with other pairs of closely related sub-categories where an umbrella category isn't warranted, the sub-cats should instead be linked to one another horizontally with {{CatRel}}. (This should be standard practice, imo.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former students of the Pontifical Gregorian University[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former students of the Pontifical Gregorian University to Category:Alumni of the Pontifical Gregorian University
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use standard naming convention for "former students" of a school. Italy appears not to have a standard format—both "Foo alumni" and "Alumni of Foo" are used, so here I'm just sticking with the general pre-existing format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Major Cities in Italy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Major Cities in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - arbitrary inclusion criteria (why 100,000+ residents, not 200,000?), non-standard and POV title ("Major" - who says so?) and Unnecessarily Capitalized To Boot. No need to upmerge, since (unsurprisingly) all the articles are adequately categorized already. BencherliteTalk 10:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Earthquakes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, no consensus on BC/BCE. Kbdank71 15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Earthquakes in the 4th century to Category:4th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 5th century BC to Category:5th-century BC earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 12th century to Category:12th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 13th century to Category:13th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 14th century to Category:14th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 15th century to Category:15th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 16th century to Category:16th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 17th century to Category:17th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 18th century to Category:18th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 19th century to Category:19th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 20th century to Category:20th-century earthquakes
Category:Earthquakes in the 21st century to Category:21st-century earthquakes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shorter name and match the form for the parents Category:4th-century natural disasters. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that some of these categories actually use defaultsort to set this form for sorting. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Once again, most of the lower-level sub-cats by year, and their parent-cats by year, are far too small & narrow -- especially when you consider that it's standard to include the year and the word "earthquake" in the names of earthquake articles. Lots Tons of work to be done. Cgingold (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What purpose do decade categories serve? Are they simply a way of breaking down larger categories? If so, maybe they should only be used when absolutely needed. Maybe favor by year categories instead since that would limit the parent categories to 100 entries, not overly large. If that happed, then the misclassification of the 00 years would also be solved. It would also remove more cases of ambiguity over what 1800s means in categories. Yea you can define this to be 10 years and not 100 years, but does that remove ambiguity? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, but change "BC" to "BCE" (I don't favor nominating categories specifically for thsi purpose, but we might as well kill two birds). –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Book categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge per nom, except for the historical documents cats. Merge those into Category:Indian historical documents. Kbdank71 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2nd-century Indian biographies (books) to Category:Indian biographies (books) and Category:2nd-century books
Category:16th-century Indian biographies (books) to Category:Indian biographies (books) and Category:16th-century books
Category:17th-century Indian biographies (books) to Category:Indian biographies (books) and Category:17th-century books
Category:16th-century Indian autobiographies to Category:Indian autobiographies and Category:16th-century books
Category:17th-century Indian autobiographies to Category:Indian autobiographies and Category:17th-century books
Category:2nd-century Indian history books to Category:Indian history books and Category:2nd-century books
Category:7th-century Indian history books to Category:Indian history books and Category:7th-century books
Category:12th-century Indian history books to Category:Indian history books and Category:12th-century books
Category:16th-century Indian history books to Category:Indian history books and Category:16th-century books
Category:17th-century Indian history books to Category:Indian history books and Category:17th-century books
Category:19th-century Indian history books to Category:Indian history books and Category:19th-century books
Category:2nd-century Indian historical documents - delete
Category:7th-century Indian historical documents - delete
Category:12th-century Indian historical documents - delete
Category:16th-century Indian historical documents - delete
Category:17th-century Indian historical documents - delete
Category:19th-century Indian historical documents - delete
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge or delete. Categories that are not part of a series for single books. Also some related parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – looking at the first we need to decide about Category:2nd-century books (which is surely OK) and its subcats (which are arguably going too far). IMO rather complicated upmerges are required. Eg just upmerging per nom removes several valid cats (parents of Category:2nd-century Indian biographies (books)) from Ashokavadana. Occuli (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I share Occuli's concerns about the need to do more in the way of upmerging than has been suggested. To take a very obvious example, the Indian historical documents sub-cats should be upmerged to Category:Indian historical documents. I'll mount a survey expedition and report back some time later today. Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to change this to multiple upmerges. However the delete suggestions are valid. History books are not historic documents. If that were true, then this would be done at the higher levels of the structure. There was at least one book where it was not clear that it was a book or a document and that article is actually in both already. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Unless there is a realistic prospect of populating these categories, they need to be upmerged. The Indian historical Documents categories should be merged together or to a parent. On the other hand I am reluctant to see older historical works subsumed into a single Category:Indian history books, and would suggest that older histories (which may have been seminal in their time) should be merged into a single category, perhaps Category:Indian history books before 1948 (Indian independence) - I would not be dogmatic as to the date. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English people of German descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English people of German descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete I don't like ethnic categories, but this is worse than most: (1) it largely overlaps Category:British people of German descent; and (2) isn't the English ethnicity basically defined as being, at least in part, Anglo-Saxon (i.e., of German descent), so as our article on England states 90% of the population is white - this forms the vast majority of the population of England?; and (3) because the English descent from the German, this is basically a superset of Category:English people of English descent, a form of category that borders on the trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find the presented rationale compelling. Ethnicity categories in general are problematic for many reasons, but this one seems especially so. Category:British people of German descent should be enough in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: On first blush I had particular opinion, but after reading the nomination, I see no reason to delete the category other than personal prejudice. The text itself contains some flagrant and strange statements, which indicates that it needs to be withdrawn, thought through, and represented if there really is a rationale for deletion. Let's start with definitions: England is an historic Nation which is now a state subdivision, British is a citizen of a State (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Anglo-Saxon is an Ethnicity. For instance: People of Caribbean island origin, living in England and citizens of the UK (British), often refer to themselves as "Black British". Are they English? Yes. British? Yes. Anglo-Saxon? Unlikely. Must a person who is a citizen of the UK be English? Of course not. But the reverse is true. Second: "because the English descent from the German" What? I can't say more than that. That line should disqualify this nomination. Look, the category seems to refer to people of identifiable or (preferably) self-identified German ancestry who are British citizens living in England. I find it appalling that you are nominating for deletion something you clearly don't even understand. And you begin with the statement: " I don't like ethnic categories". Perhaps you should begin the process of building a concensus to get rid of ethnic categories from Wikipedia, or at least present a reason why this particular category is somehow detrimental. As to overlap: it may be a good candidate for deletion if there is a demonstrated standard that citizenship appears in the first position of "BLANK people of BLANK descent". But I don't think it is too much to ask that deletion requests contain some demonstration that a) there is an agreed standard and b) there is a concenus the thing to be deleted is in contravention of that standard. Perhaps it is, but please make that case, and don't mix it up with you personal prejudices. T L Miles (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep I find the presented rationale complete crap. The Anglo-Saxons (many from Belgium, the Netherlands etc) were arriving 1,400 years ago. The British/English thing is irritating but very very well established. We do realize there was no "British" nationality until 1704, don't we? Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there was no "British nationality until 1704" no one predating then should be in any British category? Would you help me depopulate that? Also, it is part of the problem of having no criteria to say how German an Englishperson should be to be in this cat? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And "German" nationality is also a 19th century thing (1870 or so), so should we strike the hannover dynasty as pre-dating Germany? Lack of criteria make this entirely OR. So how are Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Sarah, Duchess of York categorized here? There is nothing in their biographies in WP to suggest German ancestry other than being English? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm not particularly keen on ethnic categories either but this is being used much as the others are - there is no evidence that Anglo-Saxon ancestors centuries ago are being evoked to populate the category. (Are we not all Kenyan according to some authorities?) Occuli (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that a problem with no criteria to say how German an Englishperson should be to be in this cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:British people of German descent. Immigration from Germany was quite limited between 700 and 1800. A few nobles arrived with George I and no doubt on other occasions, but this category will essentially be about those who or whose ancestors arrived in the past 150-200 years. However, we have tended in WP to use English, Scottish, and Welsh for those of native descent, and describe those of other ethnic descents as "British people". This can if necessary be clarified by a short headnote on the category page. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sportspeople from Pittsburgh[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sportspeople from Pennsylvania. Kbdank71 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sportspeople from Pittsburgh to Category:Sportspeople from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: a look at this page shows that its lists sportspeople not just from the city of Pittsburgh itself. As there is no precedent of sportspeople by metropolitan area, an upmerge into Category:Sportspeople from Pennsylvania and Category:People from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area would be fine as well. Mayumashu (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. I'm not inclined to break all state athlete categories out by city, so I'd simply upmerge this one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Basketball players from Dallas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: multi-merge to Category:Basketball players from Texas and Category:People from Dallas, Texas / Category:People from Houston, Texas. Kbdank71 15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per American convention to add the name of the state to any category by city or county. As a second option, merge into Category:Basketball players from Texas and Category:Sportspeople from Dallas, Texas / Category:Sportspeople from Houston, Texas. Whichever option is preferred. Mayumashu (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Defunct universities in England[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct universities in England to Category:Defunct universities and colleges in England
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the standard wording of Category:Defunct universities and colleges by country. BencherliteTalk 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for rename Category:Defunct universities in the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct universities and colleges in the United Kingdom for the same reason. BencherliteTalk 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_11&oldid=1074802045"